Ryzom

ZonMezz wrote:I also have a problem with the designation "major problems" under stability. Yet they have nothing except the linksys, old-ATI card problems and a couple of creature "rubber banding" incidents to back it up. Where's the horrible lag, server downtime and horrible instability we should be experiencing with a "major problems with stability" game?

Well, the choice was to desingate the problems as "minor", or "major". While there isn't significant server downtime (thankfully, since there's only one), I think it's unfair to players who expect software to be largely bug-free to characterize Ryzom's problems as "minor". The lag issues were handled better by some patches than others, but they're definitely a serious issue, especially since most recent MMOs have done a much better job avoiding it.

>This is the same designation ("major problems" under stability) given to Anarchy Online, and a lot of people (including myself) in game currently have the opinion that Ryzom's launch has been more stable than Daoc's.

Definitely Anarchy Online was worse, but I strongly disagree with Camelot's stability was worse - maybe for the PvP aspects, but not for the game generally.

>Uhm... City of Heroes is boring after about a month. I still have my Asheron's Call account(that's 5 years). In addition, and few people know this, Asheron's Call's launch was seamless.

Asheron's Call had one of the best launches of any MMO - completely agree. And I liked AC, so the reference was intended to be disparaging. But given the emphasis of recent MMOs on more interesting combat, better quest systems, flashy and different special abilities, etc. - Ryzom seems more old school.

You may not be persuaded by my viewpoints (and that's perfectly cool), but it's untrue to say that I'm inexperienced - for years I ran an RPG news site (Desslock's RPG News, which is hosted by GameSpot), I was Computer Gaming World's RPG expert for years, and wrote a monthly RPG column, and I'm now PC Gamer magazine's RPG expert and write its monthly RPG column currently -- I have no doubt you guys know RPGs at least as well as I do, and I'm not suggesting otherwise, but I'm not exactly a newbie reviewer who doesn't like RPGs.

I really think there's two schools to RPG design - the "virtual world" school of design, which tries to create a detailed "realistic", open-ended fantasy world (as represented by games like Star Wars Galaxies and Ultima Online, as MMOs, or Morrowind, Gothic 2), and the "storytelling" school of design, which put more emphasis on combat and linear question, and don't really focus on giving you open-ended role-playing opportunities (games like Knights of the Old Republic, or City of Heroes) -- the best games of either style can be enjoyable, but probably players will have a preference for one or the other.

I don't think Ryzom does a good job at either -- it has some neat "virtual world" stuff, such as the rudimentary ecology, but it's not as immersive as some other RPGs that really attempt to make you feel like you can live a virtual life of your own choosing -- it feels "too gamey" for that. Yet it also doesn't do a good job of providing entertaining quests or combat, both of which feel pretty perfunctory. So what you're left with is primarily a game about leveling attributes, and while that can be addictive for a while, I think it gets stale quickly.

"Desslock"

"Fair enough - that wasn't my intention. Also, the servers may have gone live on the 20th, but I certainly didn't see copies on shelves until long after that. But the important thing is that the substance of the statement is accurate - there are still missing features including some fundamental gameplay features mentioned in the manual (PvP, mounts, Kami hostility, siege battles) - that's all I was trying to highlight, as I decribed in further detail after that opening statement."


Actually the important thing is that a reviewers statements are clear in what their meaning. Do you think the average game player is going to read that review and think about the substance of what you said? Or are they going to read it as I did at first?

You make a very interesting closing to your review. You state "In many ways Ryzom seems like a throwback to the first generation of MMORPGs, since it seems to have more in common with the first Asheron's Call than, say, this year's City of Heroes." Yet is Ryzom so different that City of Heroes at launch? You make a point of Ryzom missing features and missions not working. Might I remind you that when City of Heroes was launched the trials that were suppose to be in the game were not. The task force missions were bugged and the devs said not to play them. Many of the story arcs were bugged. In short when City of Heroes was launched the only thing there was do to was level grinding your character. Is having missing things a negative aspect of a MMO? Yes. Is Ryzom so different than most MMO's in having missing features? No.

borguk wrote: There are mistakes and it looks like hes pulled alot from posts WE the player base have posted on the forums..

For what it's worth, other than looking for a solution to the Linksys router problem, I hadn't visited this forum prior to submitting the review. IThe opinions expressed in the review are my own (although I'm glad if other players have validated those opinions through their own experiences).

Desslock

janicki wrote:For what it's worth, other than looking for a solution to the Linksys router problem, I hadn't visited this forum prior to submitting the review. IThe opinions expressed in the review are my own (although I'm glad if other players have validated those opinions through their own experiences).

Desslock

They cant argue with that then can they, I agree with your review something that seems not to be going down to well.

Each character is limited to 300 items in their inventory. That is on par with most MMO's. However should you run out of inventory space you can buy what are called packers. They are animals that give you additional storage space, essentially a mule. If you don't feel that 300 items isn't enough space then please explain why that is.

Time to chime in on the other side of the fence. 300 item's is very very misleading. EQ for quick comparison (as it's the only other game I'm familiar with), has a max of 10 (slot bags) x 8 (bag slots) carriable inventory slots, plus 10x(8x2) bank slots, plus 10x2 shared bank slots (with the appropriate expansions).
That totals to 260 inventory slots. HOWEVER!!!! Each slot can hold a stackable items up to a stack of 20. So, 260x20 allows for 5200 items total. Not to mention that your bank is available in all towns, can't be killed, and you don't have to spend money to buy it in the first place (other than real world money).

So now we add crafting into the mix. Most recipies in EQ require between 4 and 10 items (10 being the absolute max iirc, can't remember how many items forges/looms/etc can hold). Ryzom recipies use anywhere from 2 resources (earrings), up to 26 resources (heavy vest).
So, you can carry an 17 times more potential max total items than in Ryzom but the average recipie uses ~ half the resources that a recipie in Ryzom does.

THAT, is why 300 items is not enough space and THAT is what we call BROKEN!

Most of your points seemed dead on, althought the relative weight you placed on the negatives over the positive aspects of the game was kinda harsh.

One observation though. Why is it that gamespot reviews have a tendency to drag down all scores when the reviewer has a negative tilt to the game? The standard deviation in scores on you site seems to be like 1.5 or 2. Its a rare review with a game that has Sound 10, Tilt 2. Im curious about this since you gave Ryzom a 7 in graphics. This game has the look and feel to rival a FPS like Ravenshield (scored 9) and is lightyears beyond other MMOs like Anarchy Online (scored 7). I guess I would find these reviews more helpful if they had a wider range their valuation to provide emphasis to both the good and bad parts to games. You thought this game was a grind with boring combat and no content? Then give it a playability of 2 or 3. Yet highlight the fantastic graphics with a 9 or a 10. The 5/6/5/6/5, 7/8/7/8/7, 9/10/9/10/9 shorts of reviews arent very helpful or informative about what works and what doesnt in a game.

Mekos wrote: One observation though. Why is it that gamespot reviews have a tendency to drag down all scores when the reviewer has a negative tilt to the game? The standard deviation in scores on you site seems to be like 1.5 or 2. Its a rare review with a game that has Sound 10, Tilt 2. Im curious about this since you gave Ryzom a 7 in graphics. .

I actually gave Ryzom an 8 in graphics, which translated to a slightly higher overall score (5.8) - the change was made by one of the GameSpot editors (which I didn't even notice until you mentioned it).

Here's an explanation of the GameSpot weighted average system - each item gets a score out of 10, but they are given different importance: Graphics and Value are translated into a score out of 15, while sound remains a score ouf of 10, and Gameplay (the most important) gets a score out of 30. Which leaves "tilt", which is also translated into a score out of 30, and is used by the reviewer to move the score in a direction that he thinks is appropriate (so that, for instance, a game with fantastic graphics and sound but terrible gameplay doesn't get too high a score -- or alternatively, that a game with rudimentary graphics, but great gameplay, doesn't get too low a score).

This is why I never read gamespots reviews (or IGN for that matter).

They are money driven. You would rarely get an absolutely fair review of a game or preview. Do you think they want to promote Ryzom when it means NO money to them? They would rather have WOW or Galaxies or Everquest do good because it means loads of advertising. Plus being on the side of these big name companies means they get all the exclusive previews first and such.

Most sites are giving Ryzom 4/5 stars. And most all the players LOVE the game. A score as low as they gave it is absolutly rediculous. You have to have a pretty crappy scam of a game to get that low.

janicki wrote:the change was made by one of the GameSpot editors

Ug. If they want the scores so closely grouped, why not just remove them and only give out a final x out of x stars score...

wicker wrote:They are money driven. You would rarely get an absolutely fair review of a game or preview. Do you think they want to promote Ryzom when it means NO money to them?

Well, Neevy paid to advertise the Sept. beta on Gamespot (thats how I found out about it), plus puchased those expandable flash adds the week it was released (kinda like the the gamespot equlivant of a full page add in a newspaper). It was about the same amount of advertising that Guild Wars is doing on Gamespot for their beta right now if you want a point of comparison. Wait and see how GW is reviewed when it gets released if you want to test this theory on dollars for points in reviews.

-Meek